Dataset statistics
| Number of variables | 16 |
|---|---|
| Number of observations | 2697 |
| Missing cells | 201 |
| Missing cells (%) | 0.5% |
| Duplicate rows | 0 |
| Duplicate rows (%) | 0.0% |
| Total size in memory | 337.2 KiB |
| Average record size in memory | 128.0 B |
Variable types
| Numeric | 4 |
|---|---|
| Text | 7 |
| Categorical | 4 |
| Boolean | 1 |
decision_type is highly imbalanced (76.3%) | Imbalance |
disposition has 59 (2.2%) missing values | Missing |
issue_area has 113 (4.2%) missing values | Missing |
Unnamed: 0 has unique values | Unique |
ID has unique values | Unique |
href has unique values | Unique |
facts has unique values | Unique |
Reproduction
| Analysis started | 2024-02-17 04:38:57.904443 |
|---|---|
| Analysis finished | 2024-02-17 04:39:08.611095 |
| Duration | 10.71 seconds |
| Software version | ydata-profiling vv4.6.4 |
| Download configuration | config.json |
Unnamed: 0
Real number (ℝ)
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1653.9941 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 3302 |
| Zeros | 1 |
| Zeros (%) | < 0.1% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 155.8 |
| Q1 | 809 |
| median | 1662 |
| Q3 | 2487 |
| 95-th percentile | 3140.4 |
| Maximum | 3302 |
| Range | 3302 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 1678 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 962.68494 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.58203651 |
| Kurtosis | -1.2185905 |
| Mean | 1653.9941 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 840 |
| Skewness | -0.012126281 |
| Sum | 4460822 |
| Variance | 926762.29 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 471 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 2918 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3154 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1392 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3045 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1780 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3210 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1986 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 704 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1062 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 1 | |
| 10 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 3302 | 1 | |
| 3301 | 1 | |
| 3300 | 1 | |
| 3299 | 1 | |
| 3298 | 1 | |
| 3297 | 1 | |
| 3296 | 1 | |
| 3295 | 1 | |
| 3294 | 1 | |
| 3293 | 1 |
ID
Real number (ℝ)
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 56355.736 |
| Minimum | 50606 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 63335 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 50606 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 51487.4 |
| Q1 | 54289 |
| median | 55271 |
| Q3 | 59478 |
| 95-th percentile | 63013.4 |
| Maximum | 63335 |
| Range | 12729 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 5189 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 3640.0948 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.06459138 |
| Kurtosis | -0.69010176 |
| Mean | 56355.736 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 1108 |
| Skewness | 0.74086293 |
| Sum | 1.5199142 × 108 |
| Variance | 13250290 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 53057 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 62582 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 63029 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 54983 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 62821 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 55400 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 63143 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 55613 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 53925 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 54628 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 50606 | 1 | |
| 50613 | 1 | |
| 50623 | 1 | |
| 50632 | 1 | |
| 50643 | 1 | |
| 50644 | 1 | |
| 50655 | 1 | |
| 50657 | 1 | |
| 50663 | 1 | |
| 50671 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 63335 | 1 | |
| 63332 | 1 | |
| 63331 | 1 | |
| 63324 | 1 | |
| 63323 | 1 | |
| 63322 | 1 | |
| 63321 | 1 | |
| 63319 | 1 | |
| 63318 | 1 | |
| 63316 | 1 |
name
Text
| Distinct | 2643 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 98.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 148 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 92 |
| Mean length | 31.418242 |
| Min length | 10 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 84735 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 78 |
| Distinct categories | 9 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2601 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 96.4% |
Sample
| 1st row | City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | City of Ontario v. Quon |
| 3rd row | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey |
| 4th row | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey |
| 5th row | City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| v | 2690 | 19.9% |
| united | 542 | 4.0% |
| states | 524 | 3.9% |
| of | 417 | 3.1% |
| inc | 380 | 2.8% |
| company | 139 | 1.0% |
| corporation | 81 | 0.6% |
| 80 | 0.6% | |
| new | 77 | 0.6% |
| city | 69 | 0.5% |
| Other values (3889) | 8492 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | 12.8% | |
| e | 6425 | 7.6% |
| n | 5499 | 6.5% |
| a | 5384 | 6.4% |
| o | 5086 | 6.0% |
| i | 4978 | 5.9% |
| t | 4906 | 5.8% |
| r | 4165 | 4.9% |
| . | 3503 | 4.1% |
| s | 3498 | 4.1% |
| Other values (68) | 30487 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 58950 | |
| Space Separator | 10804 | 12.8% |
| Uppercase Letter | 10681 | 12.6% |
| Other Punctuation | 4108 | 4.8% |
| Dash Punctuation | 121 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 53 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 8 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 8 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 2 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 6425 | |
| n | 5499 | |
| a | 5384 | |
| o | 5086 | 8.6% |
| i | 4978 | 8.4% |
| t | 4906 | 8.3% |
| r | 4165 | 7.1% |
| s | 3498 | 5.9% |
| v | 3122 | 5.3% |
| l | 2816 | 4.8% |
| Other values (21) | 13071 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| S | 1341 | 12.6% |
| C | 1328 | 12.4% |
| M | 680 | 6.4% |
| U | 659 | 6.2% |
| I | 655 | 6.1% |
| A | 511 | 4.8% |
| L | 474 | 4.4% |
| P | 473 | 4.4% |
| R | 444 | 4.2% |
| D | 424 | 4.0% |
| Other values (16) | 3692 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 17 | |
| 9 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 5 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 7 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 3 | 4 | 7.5% |
| 2 | 4 | 7.5% |
| 0 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 4 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 8 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 3503 | |
| , | 478 | 11.6% |
| & | 83 | 2.0% |
| ' | 42 | 1.0% |
| / | 1 | < 0.1% |
| # | 1 | < 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 121 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 8 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 8 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 69631 | |
| Common | 15104 | 17.8% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 6425 | 9.2% |
| n | 5499 | 7.9% |
| a | 5384 | 7.7% |
| o | 5086 | 7.3% |
| i | 4978 | 7.1% |
| t | 4906 | 7.0% |
| r | 4165 | 6.0% |
| s | 3498 | 5.0% |
| v | 3122 | 4.5% |
| l | 2816 | 4.0% |
| Other values (47) | 23752 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | ||
| . | 3503 | 23.2% |
| , | 478 | 3.2% |
| - | 121 | 0.8% |
| & | 83 | 0.5% |
| ' | 42 | 0.3% |
| 1 | 17 | 0.1% |
| ( | 8 | 0.1% |
| ) | 8 | 0.1% |
| 9 | 6 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (11) | 34 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 84726 | |
| None | 7 | < 0.1% |
| Punctuation | 2 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | 12.8% | |
| e | 6425 | 7.6% |
| n | 5499 | 6.5% |
| a | 5384 | 6.4% |
| o | 5086 | 6.0% |
| i | 4978 | 5.9% |
| t | 4906 | 5.8% |
| r | 4165 | 4.9% |
| . | 3503 | 4.1% |
| s | 3498 | 4.1% |
| Other values (62) | 30478 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| é | 2 | |
| í | 2 | |
| ó | 1 | |
| ã | 1 | |
| ñ | 1 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2 |
href
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 45 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 44 |
| Mean length | 38.137931 |
| Min length | 33 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 102858 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 30 |
| Distinct categories | 5 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2697 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 |
| 3rd row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 |
| 4th row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 |
| 5th row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1669 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-1053 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-424 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1360 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-998 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-224 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | 13.1% |
| s | 8142 | 7.9% |
| o | 5415 | 5.3% |
| a | 5395 | 5.2% |
| p | 5394 | 5.2% |
| . | 5394 | 5.2% |
| e | 5394 | 5.2% |
| t | 5394 | 5.2% |
| 1 | 4885 | 4.7% |
| 0 | 3907 | 3.8% |
| Other values (20) | 40053 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 54133 | |
| Decimal Number | 24718 | |
| Other Punctuation | 21576 | 21.0% |
| Dash Punctuation | 2419 | 2.4% |
| Connector Punctuation | 12 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8142 | |
| o | 5415 | |
| a | 5395 | |
| p | 5394 | |
| e | 5394 | |
| t | 5394 | |
| i | 2721 | 5.0% |
| r | 2718 | 5.0% |
| g | 2718 | 5.0% |
| c | 2700 | 5.0% |
| Other values (5) | 8142 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 4885 | |
| 0 | 3907 | |
| 9 | 3629 | |
| 2 | 2708 | |
| 8 | 1927 | 7.8% |
| 7 | 1865 | 7.5% |
| 5 | 1603 | 6.5% |
| 6 | 1554 | 6.3% |
| 4 | 1336 | 5.4% |
| 3 | 1304 | 5.3% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | |
| . | 5394 | 25.0% |
| : | 2697 | 12.5% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 2419 |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 12 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 54133 | |
| Common | 48725 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | |
| . | 5394 | 11.1% |
| 1 | 4885 | 10.0% |
| 0 | 3907 | 8.0% |
| 9 | 3629 | 7.4% |
| 2 | 2708 | 5.6% |
| : | 2697 | 5.5% |
| - | 2419 | 5.0% |
| 8 | 1927 | 4.0% |
| 7 | 1865 | 3.8% |
| Other values (5) | 5809 |
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8142 | |
| o | 5415 | |
| a | 5395 | |
| p | 5394 | |
| e | 5394 | |
| t | 5394 | |
| i | 2721 | 5.0% |
| r | 2718 | 5.0% |
| g | 2718 | 5.0% |
| c | 2700 | 5.0% |
| Other values (5) | 8142 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 102858 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | 13.1% |
| s | 8142 | 7.9% |
| o | 5415 | 5.3% |
| a | 5395 | 5.2% |
| p | 5394 | 5.2% |
| . | 5394 | 5.2% |
| e | 5394 | 5.2% |
| t | 5394 | 5.2% |
| 1 | 4885 | 4.7% |
| 0 | 3907 | 3.8% |
| Other values (20) | 40053 |
docket
Text
| Distinct | 2574 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 95.8% |
| Missing | 10 |
| Missing (%) | 0.4% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 8 |
| Mean length | 5.9854857 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 16083 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 23 |
| Distinct categories | 5 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2514 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 93.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | 83-1919 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 08-1332 |
| 3rd row | 75-1150 |
| 4th row | 77-404 |
| 5th row | 03-1601 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 6 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 13 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 8 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 5 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 23 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 9 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 7 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 4 | 0.1% |
| 3 | 4 | 0.1% |
| Other values (2564) | 2637 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (13) | 1139 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 13593 | |
| Dash Punctuation | 2379 | 14.8% |
| Lowercase Letter | 94 | 0.6% |
| Uppercase Letter | 14 | 0.1% |
| Space Separator | 3 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| 3 | 1028 |
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| g | 21 | |
| r | 21 | |
| i | 21 | |
| o | 21 | |
| u | 5 | 5.3% |
| s | 5 | 5.3% |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| M | 3 | |
| I | 3 | |
| S | 3 | |
| C | 3 | |
| A | 2 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 2379 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 3 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 15975 | |
| Latin | 108 | 0.7% |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (2) | 1031 |
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| g | 21 | |
| r | 21 | |
| i | 21 | |
| o | 21 | |
| u | 5 | 4.6% |
| s | 5 | 4.6% |
| M | 3 | 2.8% |
| I | 3 | 2.8% |
| S | 3 | 2.8% |
| C | 3 | 2.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 16083 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (13) | 1139 |
term
Text
| Distinct | 70 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 2.6% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 4 |
| Mean length | 4.0908417 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 11033 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 2 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1984 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 2009 |
| 3rd row | 1976 |
| 4th row | 1977 |
| 5th row | 2004 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2015 | 73 | 2.7% |
| 2005 | 72 | 2.7% |
| 2011 | 71 | 2.6% |
| 2002 | 70 | 2.6% |
| 2009 | 70 | 2.6% |
| 1997 | 69 | 2.6% |
| 1996 | 69 | 2.6% |
| 2004 | 68 | 2.5% |
| 1999 | 68 | 2.5% |
| 1998 | 68 | 2.5% |
| Other values (60) | 1999 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 10984 | |
| Dash Punctuation | 49 | 0.4% |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.2% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 49 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 11033 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 11033 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
first_party
Text
| Distinct | 2222 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 82.4% |
| Missing | 1 |
| Missing (%) | < 0.1% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 223 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 107 |
| Mean length | 22.247033 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 59978 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 79 |
| Distinct categories | 10 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2091 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 77.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | City of Oklahoma City |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | City of Ontario, California et al. |
| 3rd row | City of Philadelphia et al. |
| 4th row | City of Philadelphia |
| 5th row | City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, et al. |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| et | 417 | 4.5% |
| al | 401 | 4.3% |
| of | 378 | 4.1% |
| united | 247 | 2.7% |
| states | 238 | 2.6% |
| inc | 208 | 2.3% |
| and | 122 | 1.3% |
| company | 88 | 1.0% |
| the | 76 | 0.8% |
| corporation | 62 | 0.7% |
| Other values (3068) | 7006 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | 11.0% | |
| e | 5375 | 9.0% |
| a | 4425 | 7.4% |
| n | 3941 | 6.6% |
| t | 3752 | 6.3% |
| o | 3700 | 6.2% |
| r | 3437 | 5.7% |
| i | 3344 | 5.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.2% |
| s | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Other values (69) | 20648 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 42942 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 8065 | 13.4% |
| Space Separator | 6569 | 11.0% |
| Other Punctuation | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Dash Punctuation | 63 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 41 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 3 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 3 | < 0.1% |
| Control | 2 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5375 | |
| a | 4425 | |
| n | 3941 | |
| t | 3752 | |
| o | 3700 | |
| r | 3437 | 8.0% |
| i | 3344 | 7.8% |
| l | 2498 | 5.8% |
| s | 2289 | 5.3% |
| c | 1415 | 3.3% |
| Other values (18) | 8766 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| S | 893 | 11.1% |
| C | 852 | 10.6% |
| M | 545 | 6.8% |
| D | 426 | 5.3% |
| A | 423 | 5.2% |
| R | 411 | 5.1% |
| L | 410 | 5.1% |
| I | 401 | 5.0% |
| P | 351 | 4.4% |
| J | 343 | 4.3% |
| Other values (16) | 3010 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 5 | 6 | |
| 9 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 2 | 4 | |
| 0 | 4 | |
| 3 | 4 | |
| 8 | 3 | 7.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 4.9% |
| 4 | 2 | 4.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 1223 | |
| , | 989 | |
| & | 40 | 1.7% |
| ' | 22 | 1.0% |
| ; | 7 | 0.3% |
| / | 3 | 0.1% |
| " | 2 | 0.1% |
| # | 2 | 0.1% |
| : | 1 | < 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 63 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 3 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 3 |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 51007 | |
| Common | 8971 | 15.0% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5375 | 10.5% |
| a | 4425 | 8.7% |
| n | 3941 | 7.7% |
| t | 3752 | 7.4% |
| o | 3700 | 7.3% |
| r | 3437 | 6.7% |
| i | 3344 | 6.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.9% |
| s | 2289 | 4.5% |
| c | 1415 | 2.8% |
| Other values (44) | 16831 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | ||
| . | 1223 | 13.6% |
| , | 989 | 11.0% |
| - | 63 | 0.7% |
| & | 40 | 0.4% |
| ' | 22 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 8 | 0.1% |
| ; | 7 | 0.1% |
| 5 | 6 | 0.1% |
| 9 | 4 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (15) | 40 | 0.4% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 59975 | |
| None | 2 | < 0.1% |
| Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | 11.0% | |
| e | 5375 | 9.0% |
| a | 4425 | 7.4% |
| n | 3941 | 6.6% |
| t | 3752 | 6.3% |
| o | 3700 | 6.2% |
| r | 3437 | 5.7% |
| i | 3344 | 5.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.2% |
| s | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Other values (66) | 20645 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| é | 1 | |
| á | 1 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
second_party
Text
| Distinct | 2121 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 78.7% |
| Missing | 1 |
| Missing (%) | < 0.1% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 193 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 109 |
| Mean length | 22.735905 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 61296 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 74 |
| Distinct categories | 9 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1996 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 74.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | Rose Marie Tuttle, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Tuttle |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Jeff Quon, et al. |
| 3rd row | New Jersey et al. |
| 4th row | New Jersey |
| 5th row | Mark J. Abrams |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| et | 518 | 5.4% |
| al | 508 | 5.3% |
| of | 449 | 4.7% |
| united | 322 | 3.4% |
| states | 312 | 3.3% |
| inc | 206 | 2.2% |
| and | 106 | 1.1% |
| the | 84 | 0.9% |
| company | 75 | 0.8% |
| state | 70 | 0.7% |
| Other values (2952) | 6855 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | 11.1% | |
| e | 5400 | 8.8% |
| a | 4747 | 7.7% |
| t | 4094 | 6.7% |
| n | 3918 | 6.4% |
| i | 3746 | 6.1% |
| o | 3714 | 6.1% |
| r | 3283 | 5.4% |
| l | 2615 | 4.3% |
| s | 2436 | 4.0% |
| Other values (64) | 20524 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 44008 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 7925 | 12.9% |
| Space Separator | 6819 | 11.1% |
| Other Punctuation | 2411 | 3.9% |
| Dash Punctuation | 69 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 45 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 9 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 9 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5400 | |
| a | 4747 | |
| t | 4094 | |
| n | 3918 | |
| i | 3746 | |
| o | 3714 | |
| r | 3283 | 7.5% |
| l | 2615 | 5.9% |
| s | 2436 | 5.5% |
| c | 1358 | 3.1% |
| Other values (17) | 8697 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 942 | 11.9% |
| S | 901 | 11.4% |
| A | 511 | 6.4% |
| M | 446 | 5.6% |
| I | 425 | 5.4% |
| U | 385 | 4.9% |
| D | 380 | 4.8% |
| B | 368 | 4.6% |
| R | 363 | 4.6% |
| L | 340 | 4.3% |
| Other values (16) | 2864 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 18 | |
| 0 | 6 | 13.3% |
| 3 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 5 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 7 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 2 | 3 | 6.7% |
| 9 | 2 | 4.4% |
| 4 | 2 | 4.4% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.2% |
| 6 | 1 | 2.2% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 1274 | |
| , | 1043 | |
| & | 46 | 1.9% |
| ' | 26 | 1.1% |
| ; | 20 | 0.8% |
| / | 2 | 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 69 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 9 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 9 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 51933 | |
| Common | 9363 | 15.3% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5400 | 10.4% |
| a | 4747 | 9.1% |
| t | 4094 | 7.9% |
| n | 3918 | 7.5% |
| i | 3746 | 7.2% |
| o | 3714 | 7.2% |
| r | 3283 | 6.3% |
| l | 2615 | 5.0% |
| s | 2436 | 4.7% |
| c | 1358 | 2.6% |
| Other values (43) | 16622 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | ||
| . | 1274 | 13.6% |
| , | 1043 | 11.1% |
| - | 69 | 0.7% |
| & | 46 | 0.5% |
| ' | 26 | 0.3% |
| ; | 20 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 18 | 0.2% |
| ( | 9 | 0.1% |
| ) | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (11) | 30 | 0.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 61294 | |
| Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
| None | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | 11.1% | |
| e | 5400 | 8.8% |
| a | 4747 | 7.7% |
| t | 4094 | 6.7% |
| n | 3918 | 6.4% |
| i | 3746 | 6.1% |
| o | 3714 | 6.1% |
| r | 3283 | 5.4% |
| l | 2615 | 4.3% |
| s | 2436 | 4.0% |
| Other values (62) | 20522 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ñ | 1 |
facts
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 5858 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1512 |
| Mean length | 1108.5821 |
| Min length | 26 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2989846 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 104 |
| Distinct categories | 16 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 4 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2697 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | <p>On October 10, 1980, an Oklahoma City police officer shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside a bar. Rose Marie Tuttle, Albert’s widow, sued the police officer and the city in district court under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows an individual to recover damages against a party who “acting under color of state law” deprives another of his constitutional rights. The district court instructed the jury that the city could be held liable only if the incident had been caused by a municipal “policy,” but a single, unusually excessive use of force could support a finding that the city was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent in the training or supervision of its police force and was therefore liable under Section 1983. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the police officer but against the city and awarded Tuttle’s estate $1.5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.</p> |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | <p>Employees of the City of Ontario, California police department filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in a California federal district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They alleged Fourth Amendment violations in relation to the police department's review of text messages made by an employee on a city issued text-message pager. While the city did not have an official text-messaging privacy policy, it did have a general "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy." The policy in part stated that "[t]he City of Ontario reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice," and that "[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." Employees were told verbally that the text-messaging pagers were considered e-mail and subject to the general policy. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.</p> <p>On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court held that city employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the text messages they sent on their city-issued pagers because there was no text message privacy policy in place. Moreover, the court noted that the police department's review of the text messages was unreasonable because it could have used "less intrusive methods" to determine whether employees' had properly used the text messaging service.</p> |
| 3rd row | <p>A New Jersey statute prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste into the state, except for garbage for swine feed. The City of Philadelphia challenged the statute, alleging it was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of Article I and pre-empted by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the statute. Congress then passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.</p> |
| 4th row | <p>A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."</p> |
| 5th row | <p>Rancho Palos Verdes, a city in California, gave Mark Abrams a permit to construct an antenna on his property for amateur use. But when the city learned Abrams used the antenna for commercial purposes, the city forced Abrams to stop until he got a commercial use permit. Abrams applied and the city refused to give him the permit. Abrams then sued in federal district court, alleging the city violated his rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Abrams sought damages under a federal liability law that allowed people to sue for damages for federal rights violations.</p> <p>The district court agreed with Abrams and ordered the city to give Abrams the permit. But the court refused Abrams' request for damages under the separate federal liability law. The court said Congress intended for violations of rights under the Telecommunications Act to include only remedies specifically found in that act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that because the act did not contain a "comprehensive remedial scheme," Abrams could seek damages under other federal laws.</p> |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 40890 | 8.8% |
| of | 16316 | 3.5% |
| to | 12754 | 2.8% |
| and | 11396 | 2.5% |
| a | 10687 | 2.3% |
| that | 9621 | 2.1% |
| court | 8325 | 1.8% |
| in | 8247 | 1.8% |
| for | 6017 | 1.3% |
| was | 5414 | 1.2% |
| Other values (25883) | 333638 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| e | 293885 | 9.8% |
| t | 235741 | 7.9% |
| a | 184692 | 6.2% |
| i | 181559 | 6.1% |
| n | 164827 | 5.5% |
| o | 164608 | 5.5% |
| r | 158578 | 5.3% |
| s | 135876 | 4.5% |
| d | 105090 | 3.5% |
| Other values (94) | 905288 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 2307428 | |
| Space Separator | 459912 | 15.4% |
| Uppercase Letter | 100304 | 3.4% |
| Other Punctuation | 62612 | 2.1% |
| Decimal Number | 22520 | 0.8% |
| Math Symbol | 19626 | 0.7% |
| Control | 4280 | 0.1% |
| Dash Punctuation | 3826 | 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 2796 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 2760 | 0.1% |
| Other values (6) | 3782 | 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 293885 | |
| t | 235741 | |
| a | 184692 | 8.0% |
| i | 181559 | 7.9% |
| n | 164827 | 7.1% |
| o | 164608 | 7.1% |
| r | 158578 | 6.9% |
| s | 135876 | 5.9% |
| d | 105090 | 4.6% |
| h | 104892 | 4.5% |
| Other values (21) | 577680 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 14658 | |
| A | 12053 | |
| S | 10346 | 10.3% |
| T | 10103 | 10.1% |
| I | 4822 | 4.8% |
| M | 4567 | 4.6% |
| D | 4303 | 4.3% |
| F | 4192 | 4.2% |
| P | 3649 | 3.6% |
| U | 3585 | 3.6% |
| Other values (16) | 28026 |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 26555 | |
| , | 21747 | |
| / | 5269 | 8.4% |
| ' | 4254 | 6.8% |
| " | 3759 | 6.0% |
| ; | 416 | 0.7% |
| § | 193 | 0.3% |
| & | 161 | 0.3% |
| : | 142 | 0.2% |
| % | 74 | 0.1% |
| Other values (3) | 42 | 0.1% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 4785 | |
| 0 | 3755 | |
| 9 | 3264 | |
| 2 | 2799 | |
| 5 | 1501 | 6.7% |
| 8 | 1424 | 6.3% |
| 6 | 1256 | 5.6% |
| 7 | 1250 | 5.6% |
| 3 | 1245 | 5.5% |
| 4 | 1241 | 5.5% |
Math Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| > | 9757 | |
| < | 9757 | |
| = | 103 | 0.5% |
| ⎯ | 8 | < 0.1% |
| + | 1 | < 0.1% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 3705 | |
| — | 92 | 2.4% |
| – | 27 | 0.7% |
| ― | 2 | 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| 210 | < 0.1% |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 2657 | |
| ] | 139 | 5.0% |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 2621 | |
| [ | 139 | 5.0% |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1853 | |
| ” | 708 | 27.6% |
Initial Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| “ | 711 | |
| ‘ | 26 | 3.5% |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 4280 |
Currency Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| $ | 413 |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 67 |
Line Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 |
Other Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ½ | 2 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 2407732 | |
| Common | 582114 | 19.5% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 293885 | |
| t | 235741 | 9.8% |
| a | 184692 | 7.7% |
| i | 181559 | 7.5% |
| n | 164827 | 6.8% |
| o | 164608 | 6.8% |
| r | 158578 | 6.6% |
| s | 135876 | 5.6% |
| d | 105090 | 4.4% |
| h | 104892 | 4.4% |
| Other values (47) | 677984 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| . | 26555 | 4.6% |
| , | 21747 | 3.7% |
| > | 9757 | 1.7% |
| < | 9757 | 1.7% |
| / | 5269 | 0.9% |
| 1 | 4785 | 0.8% |
| 4280 | 0.7% | |
| ' | 4254 | 0.7% |
| " | 3759 | 0.6% |
| Other values (37) | 32249 | 5.5% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2985979 | |
| Punctuation | 3437 | 0.1% |
| None | 422 | < 0.1% |
| Misc Technical | 8 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| e | 293885 | 9.8% |
| t | 235741 | 7.9% |
| a | 184692 | 6.2% |
| i | 181559 | 6.1% |
| n | 164827 | 5.5% |
| o | 164608 | 5.5% |
| r | 158578 | 5.3% |
| s | 135876 | 4.6% |
| d | 105090 | 3.5% |
| Other values (76) | 901421 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1853 | |
| “ | 711 | 20.7% |
| ” | 708 | 20.6% |
| — | 92 | 2.7% |
| – | 27 | 0.8% |
| ‘ | 26 | 0.8% |
| … | 16 | 0.5% |
| ― | 2 | 0.1% |
| 2 | 0.1% |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 210 | ||
| § | 193 | |
| á | 9 | 2.1% |
| ó | 3 | 0.7% |
| é | 2 | 0.5% |
| ½ | 2 | 0.5% |
| í | 2 | 0.5% |
| ü | 1 | 0.2% |
Misc Technical
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ⎯ | 8 |
facts_len
Real number (ℝ)
| Distinct | 1444 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 53.5% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1108.5821 |
| Minimum | 26 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 5858 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 26 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 375.8 |
| Q1 | 746 |
| median | 1051 |
| Q3 | 1382 |
| 95-th percentile | 2076.4 |
| Maximum | 5858 |
| Range | 5832 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 636 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 527.23266 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.47559188 |
| Kurtosis | 3.9144131 |
| Mean | 1108.5821 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 317 |
| Skewness | 1.1538625 |
| Sum | 2989846 |
| Variance | 277974.28 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1174 | 8 | 0.3% |
| 986 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 954 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1415 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1280 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1118 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 1067 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 1290 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 780 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 847 | 6 | 0.2% |
| Other values (1434) | 2631 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 26 | 1 | |
| 30 | 1 | |
| 31 | 1 | |
| 105 | 1 | |
| 106 | 1 | |
| 107 | 1 | |
| 125 | 1 | |
| 145 | 1 | |
| 147 | 1 | |
| 162 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5858 | 1 | |
| 4299 | 1 | |
| 3538 | 1 | |
| 3526 | 1 | |
| 3516 | 1 | |
| 3281 | 1 | |
| 3248 | 1 | |
| 3215 | 1 | |
| 3206 | 1 | |
| 3174 | 1 |
majority_vote
Real number (ℝ)
| Distinct | 7 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 7.028921 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 9 |
| Zeros | 19 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.7% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 5 |
| Q1 | 5 |
| median | 7 |
| Q3 | 9 |
| 95-th percentile | 9 |
| Maximum | 9 |
| Range | 9 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 4 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 1.7184787 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.24448685 |
| Kurtosis | 0.1180519 |
| Mean | 7.028921 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 2 |
| Skewness | -0.47051477 |
| Sum | 18957 |
| Variance | 2.9531692 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=7)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 9 | 849 | |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 9 | 849 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 9 | 849 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
minority_vote
Categorical
| Distinct | 5 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.2% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| 0 | |
|---|---|
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 |
Length
| Max length | 1 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1 |
| Mean length | 1 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 5 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 0 |
| 3rd row | 4 |
| 4th row | 2 |
| 5th row | 0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 2697 |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 2697 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2697 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
first_party_winner
Boolean
| Distinct | 2 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.1% |
| Missing | 12 |
| Missing (%) | 0.4% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| True | |
|---|---|
| False | |
| (Missing) | 12 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| True | 1764 | |
| False | 921 | |
| (Missing) | 12 | 0.4% |
decision_type
Categorical
IMBALANCE
| Distinct | 10 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.4% |
| Missing | 5 |
| Missing (%) | 0.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| majority opinion | |
|---|---|
| per curiam | 216 |
| plurality opinion | 123 |
| equally divided | 12 |
| dismissal - rule 46 | 6 |
| Other values (5) | 15 |
Length
| Max length | 33 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 16 |
| Mean length | 15.599183 |
| Min length | 10 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 41993 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 25 |
| Distinct categories | 4 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | plurality opinion |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | majority opinion |
| 3rd row | per curiam |
| 4th row | majority opinion |
| 5th row | majority opinion |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| majority opinion | 2320 | |
| per curiam | 216 | 8.0% |
| plurality opinion | 123 | 4.6% |
| equally divided | 12 | 0.4% |
| dismissal - rule 46 | 6 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - improvidently granted | 5 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - other | 5 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - moot | 3 | 0.1% |
| memorandum | 1 | < 0.1% |
| opinion of the court | 1 | < 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 5 | 0.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| opinion | 2444 | |
| majority | 2320 | |
| per | 216 | 4.0% |
| curiam | 216 | 4.0% |
| plurality | 123 | 2.3% |
| dismissal | 19 | 0.4% |
| 19 | 0.4% | |
| equally | 12 | 0.2% |
| divided | 12 | 0.2% |
| 46 | 6 | 0.1% |
| Other values (9) | 28 | 0.5% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 6.9% |
| p | 2788 | 6.6% |
| 2723 | 6.5% | |
| a | 2696 | 6.4% |
| m | 2566 | 6.1% |
| t | 2463 | 5.9% |
| y | 2460 | 5.9% |
| Other values (15) | 3654 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 39239 | |
| Space Separator | 2723 | 6.5% |
| Dash Punctuation | 19 | < 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 12 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 7.4% |
| p | 2788 | 7.1% |
| a | 2696 | 6.9% |
| m | 2566 | 6.5% |
| t | 2463 | 6.3% |
| y | 2460 | 6.3% |
| j | 2320 | 5.9% |
| Other values (11) | 1303 | 3.3% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 4 | 6 | |
| 6 | 6 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2723 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 19 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 39239 | |
| Common | 2754 | 6.6% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 7.4% |
| p | 2788 | 7.1% |
| a | 2696 | 6.9% |
| m | 2566 | 6.5% |
| t | 2463 | 6.3% |
| y | 2460 | 6.3% |
| j | 2320 | 5.9% |
| Other values (11) | 1303 | 3.3% |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2723 | ||
| - | 19 | 0.7% |
| 4 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 6 | 6 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 41993 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 6.9% |
| p | 2788 | 6.6% |
| 2723 | 6.5% | |
| a | 2696 | 6.4% |
| m | 2566 | 6.1% |
| t | 2463 | 5.9% |
| y | 2460 | 5.9% |
| Other values (15) | 3654 |
disposition
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 9 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 59 |
| Missing (%) | 2.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| reversed/remanded | |
|---|---|
| affirmed | |
| reversed | |
| vacated/remanded | |
| reversed in-part/remanded | 49 |
| Other values (4) | 56 |
Length
| Max length | 25 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 24 |
| Mean length | 12.448825 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 32840 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 17 |
| Distinct categories | 4 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | reversed |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | reversed/remanded |
| 3rd row | vacated/remanded |
| 4th row | reversed |
| 5th row | reversed/remanded |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| reversed/remanded | 885 | |
| affirmed | 809 | |
| reversed | 479 | |
| vacated/remanded | 360 | |
| reversed in-part/remanded | 49 | 1.8% |
| none | 30 | 1.1% |
| reversed in-part | 17 | 0.6% |
| vacated | 6 | 0.2% |
| vacated in-part/remanded | 3 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 59 | 2.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| reversed/remanded | 885 | |
| affirmed | 809 | |
| reversed | 545 | |
| vacated/remanded | 360 | |
| in-part/remanded | 52 | 1.9% |
| none | 30 | 1.1% |
| in-part | 17 | 0.6% |
| vacated | 9 | 0.3% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 8.9% |
| m | 2106 | 6.4% |
| v | 1799 | 5.5% |
| f | 1618 | 4.9% |
| s | 1430 | 4.4% |
| n | 1426 | 4.3% |
| / | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Other values (7) | 1922 | 5.9% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 31405 | |
| Other Punctuation | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Space Separator | 69 | 0.2% |
| Dash Punctuation | 69 | 0.2% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 9.3% |
| m | 2106 | 6.7% |
| v | 1799 | 5.7% |
| f | 1618 | 5.2% |
| s | 1430 | 4.6% |
| n | 1426 | 4.5% |
| i | 878 | 2.8% |
| Other values (4) | 906 | 2.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 1297 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 69 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 69 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 31405 | |
| Common | 1435 | 4.4% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 9.3% |
| m | 2106 | 6.7% |
| v | 1799 | 5.7% |
| f | 1618 | 5.2% |
| s | 1430 | 4.6% |
| n | 1426 | 4.5% |
| i | 878 | 2.8% |
| Other values (4) | 906 | 2.9% |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 1297 | |
| 69 | 4.8% | |
| - | 69 | 4.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 32840 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 8.9% |
| m | 2106 | 6.4% |
| v | 1799 | 5.5% |
| f | 1618 | 4.9% |
| s | 1430 | 4.4% |
| n | 1426 | 4.3% |
| / | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Other values (7) | 1922 | 5.9% |
issue_area
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 14 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.5% |
| Missing | 113 |
| Missing (%) | 4.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| Criminal Procedure | |
|---|---|
| Civil Rights | |
| Economic Activity | |
| First Amendment | |
| Judicial Power | |
| Other values (9) |
Length
| Max length | 20 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 17 |
| Mean length | 14.754257 |
| Min length | 6 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 38125 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 32 |
| Distinct categories | 3 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | < 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | Civil Rights |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Criminal Procedure |
| 3rd row | Economic Activity |
| 4th row | Economic Activity |
| 5th row | Civil Rights |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Criminal Procedure | 709 | |
| Civil Rights | 470 | |
| Economic Activity | 439 | |
| First Amendment | 290 | |
| Judicial Power | 274 | 10.2% |
| Due Process | 102 | 3.8% |
| Federalism | 96 | 3.6% |
| Privacy | 59 | 2.2% |
| Unions | 46 | 1.7% |
| Federal Taxation | 45 | 1.7% |
| Other values (4) | 54 | 2.0% |
| (Missing) | 113 | 4.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| criminal | 709 | |
| procedure | 709 | |
| civil | 470 | |
| rights | 470 | |
| economic | 439 | |
| activity | 439 | |
| first | 290 | |
| amendment | 290 | |
| judicial | 274 | 5.6% |
| power | 274 | 5.6% |
| Other values (13) | 552 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 7.9% |
| e | 2833 | 7.4% |
| c | 2482 | 6.5% |
| 2332 | 6.1% | |
| o | 2108 | 5.5% |
| t | 2045 | 5.4% |
| n | 1920 | 5.0% |
| m | 1824 | 4.8% |
| l | 1633 | 4.3% |
| Other values (22) | 12667 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 30877 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 4916 | 12.9% |
| Space Separator | 2332 | 6.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | |
| e | 2833 | |
| c | 2482 | 8.0% |
| o | 2108 | 6.8% |
| t | 2045 | 6.6% |
| n | 1920 | 6.2% |
| m | 1824 | 5.9% |
| l | 1633 | 5.3% |
| d | 1414 | 4.6% |
| Other values (9) | 6337 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 1179 | |
| P | 1146 | |
| A | 763 | |
| R | 471 | 9.6% |
| E | 439 | 8.9% |
| F | 431 | 8.8% |
| J | 274 | 5.6% |
| D | 102 | 2.1% |
| U | 46 | 0.9% |
| T | 45 | 0.9% |
| Other values (2) | 20 | 0.4% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2332 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 35793 | |
| Common | 2332 | 6.1% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 8.5% |
| e | 2833 | 7.9% |
| c | 2482 | 6.9% |
| o | 2108 | 5.9% |
| t | 2045 | 5.7% |
| n | 1920 | 5.4% |
| m | 1824 | 5.1% |
| l | 1633 | 4.6% |
| d | 1414 | 4.0% |
| Other values (21) | 11253 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2332 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 38125 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 7.9% |
| e | 2833 | 7.4% |
| c | 2482 | 6.5% |
| 2332 | 6.1% | |
| o | 2108 | 5.5% |
| t | 2045 | 5.4% |
| n | 1920 | 5.0% |
| m | 1824 | 4.8% |
| l | 1633 | 4.3% |
| Other values (22) | 12667 |
A simple visualization of nullity by column.
Nullity matrix is a data-dense display which lets you quickly visually pick out patterns in data completion.
| Unnamed: 0 | ID | name | href | docket | term | first_party | second_party | facts | facts_len | majority_vote | minority_vote | first_party_winner | decision_type | disposition | issue_area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 471 | 53057 | City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 | 83-1919 | 1984 | City of Oklahoma City | Rose Marie Tuttle, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Tuttle | <p>On October 10, 1980, an Oklahoma City police officer shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside a bar. Rose Marie Tuttle, Albert’s widow, sued the police officer and the city in district court under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows an individual to recover damages against a party who “acting under color of state law” deprives another of his constitutional rights. The district court instructed the jury that the city could be held liable only if the incident had been caused by a municipal “policy,” but a single, unusually excessive use of force could support a finding that the city was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent in the training or supervision of its police force and was therefore liable under Section 1983. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the police officer but against the city and awarded Tuttle’s estate $1.5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.</p>\n | 952 | 7 | 1 | True | plurality opinion | reversed | Civil Rights |
| 1 | 2071 | 55708 | City of Ontario v. Quon | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 | 08-1332 | 2009 | City of Ontario, California et al. | Jeff Quon, et al. | <p>Employees of the City of Ontario, California police department filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in a California federal district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They alleged Fourth Amendment violations in relation to the police department's review of text messages made by an employee on a city issued text-message pager. While the city did not have an official text-messaging privacy policy, it did have a general "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy." The policy in part stated that "[t]he City of Ontario reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice," and that "[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." Employees were told verbally that the text-messaging pagers were considered e-mail and subject to the general policy. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.</p>\n<p>On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court held that city employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the text messages they sent on their city-issued pagers because there was no text message privacy policy in place. Moreover, the court noted that the police department's review of the text messages was unreasonable because it could have used "less intrusive methods" to determine whether employees' had properly used the text messaging service.</p>\n | 1494 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Criminal Procedure |
| 2 | 169 | 51555 | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 | 75-1150 | 1976 | City of Philadelphia et al. | New Jersey et al. | <p>A New Jersey statute prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste into the state, except for garbage for swine feed. The City of Philadelphia challenged the statute, alleging it was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of Article I and pre-empted by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the statute. Congress then passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.</p>\n | 430 | 5 | 4 | True | per curiam | vacated/remanded | Economic Activity |
| 3 | 230 | 51844 | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 | 77-404 | 1977 | City of Philadelphia | New Jersey | <p>A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."</p>\n | 162 | 7 | 2 | True | majority opinion | reversed | Economic Activity |
| 4 | 1626 | 55235 | City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 | 03-1601 | 2004 | City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, et al. | Mark J. Abrams | <p>Rancho Palos Verdes, a city in California, gave Mark Abrams a permit to construct an antenna on his property for amateur use. But when the city learned Abrams used the antenna for commercial purposes, the city forced Abrams to stop until he got a commercial use permit. Abrams applied and the city refused to give him the permit. Abrams then sued in federal district court, alleging the city violated his rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Abrams sought damages under a federal liability law that allowed people to sue for damages for federal rights violations.</p>\n<p>The district court agreed with Abrams and ordered the city to give Abrams the permit. But the court refused Abrams' request for damages under the separate federal liability law. The court said Congress intended for violations of rights under the Telecommunications Act to include only remedies specifically found in that act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that because the act did not contain a "comprehensive remedial scheme," Abrams could seek damages under other federal laws.</p>\n | 1094 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights |
| 5 | 477 | 53099 | City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1360 | 84-1360 | 1985 | City of Renton | Playtime Theatres, Inc. | <p>The city of Renton, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating with in 1,000 feet of "any residential zone, single-or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school." Playtime Theatres, Inc., challenged the ordinance and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement.</p>\n | 342 | 7 | 2 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment |
| 6 | 619 | 53621 | City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-998 | 87-998 | 1988 | City of Richmond | J. A. Croson Company | <p>In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.</p>\n | 330 | 6 | 3 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Civil Rights |
| 7 | 500 | 53212 | City of Riverside v. Rivera | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-224 | 85-224 | 1985 | City of Riverside | Rivera | <p>In 1975, eight Chicano individuals were attending a party that was broken up by the Riverside police using tear gas and physical force without a warrant. Subsequently, the eight individuals filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and various police officers under several federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The jury found in the individuals' favor and awarded $33,350 in compensatory and punitive damages. The individuals also sought attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 in the amount of $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended by their two attorneys at $125 per hour and 84.5 hours expended by law clerks at $25 per hour. Finding both the hours and rates reasonable, the District Court awarded the requested amount, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the fee award was not excessive merely because it exceeded the amount of damages awarded by the jury.</p>\n | 1018 | 5 | 4 | False | plurality opinion | affirmed | Attorneys |
| 8 | 1627 | 55236 | City of San Diego v. Roe | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1669 | 03-1669 | 2004 | City of San Diego, California | John Roe | <p>John Roe, a San Diego police officer, was fired for selling a video on eBay that showed him stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. He then sued the city in federal district court and alleged his firing violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The district court ruled against the officer; the Ninth Circuit reversed.</p>\n | 350 | 9 | 0 | True | per curiam | reversed | First Amendment |
| 9 | 1639 | 55248 | City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-855 | 03-855 | 2004 | City of Sherrill, New York | Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al. | <p>In the late 18th century, Congress set aside most of the tribal land of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York as a reservation. The tribe later sold off much of the reservation. In the 1990s members of the tribe began to buy back pieces of the land. The tribe said the reacquired land was part of a reservation and therefore exempt from state and municipal taxes. The City of Sherrill - which encompassed some of the tribe's property - argued the land was not tax-exempt. The Oneidas sued Sherrill in federal district court and alleged the land was recognized by the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua as part of their historic reservation. The Oneidas also pointed to the 1790 Non- Intercourse Act that required federal consent for Indian land to lose its reservation status. Sherrill argued the land lost its reservation status after leaving the Oneidas' ownership originally. The district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the Oneidas.</p>\n | 959 | 8 | 1 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights |
| Unnamed: 0 | ID | name | href | docket | term | first_party | second_party | facts | facts_len | majority_vote | minority_vote | first_party_winner | decision_type | disposition | issue_area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2687 | 1367 | 54953 | Zelman v. Simmons-Harris | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1751 | 00-1751 | 2001 | Zelman | Simmons-Harris | <p>Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children. In the 1999-2000 school year 82 percent of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation and 96 percent of the students participating in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line. A group of Ohio taxpayers sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.</p>\n | 966 | 5 | 4 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment |
| 2688 | 2793 | 62139 | Zenith Radio Corporation v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1970/80 | 80 | 1970 | Zenith Radio Corporation | Hazeltine Research, Inc. | <p>After refusing to renew a patent licensing agreement, Zenith Radio Corp., a radio and television manufacturer, was sued by Hazeltine Research, Inc., for patent infringement in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Zenith counterclaimed, alleging anti-trust violations, misuse of patents, and a conspiracy to restrain trade in Canada, England, and Australia. Zenith asked for treble damages and injunctive relief. Zenith contended that Hazeltine's license forced them to pay for use of unpatented products and that Hazeltine had illegally conspired with foreign patent pools to prevent Zenith from expanding into those markets.</p>\n<p>Before trial, Zenith had stipulated that Hazeltine and its parent corporation were one entity for the purposes of litigation. The District Court entered judgment against Hazeltine and its parent corporation, awarding Zenith treble damages and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the damages award, but otherwise reversed the District Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated all judgments against Hazeltine's parent corporation because Zenith's pretrial stipulation did not properly designate the parent corporation as a party to the litigation.</p>\n | 1260 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Economic Activity |
| 2689 | 892 | 54439 | Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Company | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1361 | 94-1361 | 1995 | Zicherman | Korean Air Lines Company | <p>In 1983, Korean Air Lines (KAL) Flight KE007, en route from Alaska to South Korea entered the airspace of the former Soviet Union and was shot down. All 269 people on board were killed, including Muriel Kole. Subsequently, Marjorie Zicherman and Muriel Mahalek, Kole's sister and mother sued KAL under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which governs international air transportation. Zicherman and Mahalek were awarded loss-of-society damages. The Court of Appeals set aside the verdict, holding that general maritime law supplied the substantive compensatory damages law to be applied in an action under the Warsaw Convention and that, under such law, a plaintiff can recover for loss of society only if he was the decedent's dependent at the time of death. The appellate court found that Mahalek had not established dependent status and remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Zicherman was a dependent of the decedent.</p>\n | 954 | 9 | 0 | False | majority opinion | reversed in-part | Economic Activity |
| 2690 | 3007 | 62759 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1358 | 15-1358 | 2016 | James W. Ziglar | Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et. al. | <p dir="ltr">The respondents in this case are a group of male, non-U.S. citizens, most of whom are Muslim of Middle Eastern origin who were detained after the September 11, 2001 attacks and treated as “of interest” in the government’s investigation of these events. In their original claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they were detained without notice of the charges against them or information about how they were determined to be “of interest,” that their access to counsel and the courts was interfered with, and that they were subjected to excessively harsh treatment during their detention. They also asserted that their race, ethnicity, and national origin played a determinative role in the decision to detain them. The plaintiffs sued a number of government officials and argued that the government used their status as non-citizens to detain them when the government’s real purpose was to investigate whether they were terrorists and that the conditions of their confinement violated their Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. After a series of motions to dismiss, the district court dismissed the claims regarding the length of confinement but allowed the Constitutional claims to proceed. Both the plaintiffs and defendants appealed various aspects of that ruling. </p>\n<p>While that appeal was pending, some of the plaintiffs settled their claims against the government and the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which held that a complaint must allege sufficient facts to be plausible on its face and to allow a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the claimed conduct. Based on these events, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the length of confinement claims but remanded the conditions of confinement claims and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The appellate court again dismissed some of the claims and allowed others to proceed.</p>\n | 1961 | 4 | 2 | True | plurality opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights |
| 2691 | 2173 | 55824 | Zivotofsky v. Clinton | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-699 | 10-699 | 2011 | M. B. Z., By His Parents and Guardians Ari Z. Zivotofsky, et ux. | Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State | <p>Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky is a United States citizen born on October 17, 2002 in Jerusalem. In December 2002, Zivotofsky's mother filed an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and a United States passport for petitioner, listing his place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel." United States diplomatic officials informed petitioner's mother that State Department policy required them to record "Jerusalem" as petitioner's place of birth, which is how petitioner's place of birth appears in the documents he received.</p>\n<p>On his behalf, Zivotofsky's parents filed this suit against the Secretary of State seeking an order compelling the State Department to identify petitioner's place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel" in the official documents. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed the complaint after concluding that petitioner lacked standing, and that the complaint raised a nonjusticiable political question. United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that petitioner had standing and that a more complete record was needed on the foreign policy implications of recording "Israel" as Zivotofsky's place of birth.</p>\n<p>On remand, the State Department explained, among other things, that in the present circumstances if "Israel" were to be recorded as the place of birth of a person born in Jerusalem, such "unilateral action" by the United States on one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians "would critically compromise" the United States' ability to help further the Middle East peace process. The district court again dismissed on political question grounds. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Zivotofsky's claim is foreclosed because it raises a nonjusticiable political question.</p>\n | 1851 | 8 | 1 | True | majority opinion | vacated/remanded | Miscellaneous |
| 2692 | 2415 | 56102 | Zivotofsky v. Kerry | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-628 | 13-628 | 2014 | M. B. Z., By His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. Zivotofsky, et ux. | John Kerry, Secretary of State | <p>In 2002, Manachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem to parents who are United States citizens. Manachem's parents requested that the U.S. State Department record his place of birth on his passport as "Israel," in accordance with Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003 (Act). The State Department refused and instead issued Manachem a passport that listed "Jerusalem" as his place of birth. His parents sued the Secretary of State on his behalf and sought the enforcement of Section 214(d). The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that it presented a non-justiciable political question. The U.S. Supreme Court, in <em>Zivotofsky v. Clinton</em>, reversed that holding and remanded the case. On remand, the district court held that Section 214(d) "impermissibly intereferes" with the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed and held that the section goes beyond the scope of Congress's passport power to affect United States foreign policy, which is a realm the Constitution reserves for the executive branch.</p>\n | 1143 | 6 | 3 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Miscellaneous |
| 2693 | 751 | 54076 | Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-94 | 92-94 | 1992 | Zobrest | Catalina Foothills School District | <p>James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter. Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter. The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds. The Zobrests then filed suit, alleging that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide the interpreter and that the Establishment Clause did not bar such relief. The District Court granted the school district summary judgment on the ground that the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</p>\n | 972 | 5 | 4 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment |
| 2694 | 2939 | 62620 | Zubik v. Burwell | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1418 | 14-1418 | 2015 | David A. Zubik, et al. | Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. | <p>In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering health plans to provide preventative care and screenings for women pursuant to the guidelines established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These guidelines include “approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” The regulations include an exemption from contraceptive coverage for the group health plan of a religious employer. The exemption does not mean that such services are not covered, but that they are not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism.</p>\n<p>The petitioners are religious organizations that argue that the contraceptive coverage mandate of the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Congress enacted in 1993, because the mandate requires these organizations to “facilitate” the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptive services that they oppose on religious grounds. In several separate cases, the relevant district courts issued injunctions against the government, and the relevant Courts of Appeals reversed. The appellate courts held that the religious organizations were unable to show that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the exercise of their religious freedom.</p>\n | 1388 | 8 | 0 | True | majority opinion | vacated/remanded | First Amendment |
| 2695 | 1807 | 55427 | Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1508 | 05-1508 | 2006 | Zuni Public School District No. 89 et al. | United States Department of Education et al. | <p>The Department of Education certified that the state of New Mexico equalizes educational expenditures among school districts. The certification of equalization allowed New Mexico to offset its funding of districts located on Indian Reservations by a proportion of the federal Impact Aid payments made to those districts. Zuni Public School District objected to the certification, arguing that the Department had not followed the statutory formula for determining that a state's expenditures are equalized. Outlier school districts falling above the 95th or below the 5th percentile in per-pupil expenditures were excluded from consideration when the Department determined equalization. The Department calculated these percentiles based on the total student population, but Zuni argued that 20 U.S.C. Section 7709 had repealed that policy.</p>\n<p>An administrative judge dismissed Zuni's complaint, and the Secretary of Education affirmed on the ground that the law was ambiguous. A divided panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the Secretary's decision as a valid interpretation of the statute. In a rehearing by the entire Circuit Court, the 12 judges split evenly, again upholding the ruling.</p>\n | 1236 | 5 | 4 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Judicial Power |
| 2696 | 224 | 51804 | Zurcher v. Stanford Daily | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1484 | 76-1484 | 1977 | Zurcher | Stanford Daily | <p>In 1971, officers of the Palo Alto, California, Police Department obtained a warrant to search the main office of The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at the university. It was believed that The Stanford Daily had pictures of a violent clash between a group of protesters and the police; the pictures were needed to identify the assailants. The officers searched The Daily's photographic laboratories, filing cabinets, desks, and waste paper baskets, but no materials were removed from the office. This case was decided together with Bergna v. Stanford Daily, involving the district attorney and a deputy district attorney who participated in the obtaining of the search warrant.</p>\n | 692 | 5 | 3 | True | majority opinion | reversed | Criminal Procedure |